Re: correct and incorrect uses of canvas

On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 8:38 PM, Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com> wrote:
> There was some debate about remote access being a reasonable use case, as
> well
> as debate about whether the rendering of other non-web/legacy formats
> qualified as a reasonable use case.

If you're talking about me here (?), my argument was *not* that remote
access is not a "reasonable use case".

My position was:

1. Use cases can be desirable without being practical to solve.

2. Although the trend towards cloud-computing may make it increasingly
irrelevant, remote system access remains a desirable use case to solve
for now and could make a practical difference in terms of the
employability of people with disabilities.

3. Accessibility for web-based remote system access is most
practically approached using remote AT, just as it's currently
approached with native remote system access.

You did raise a remote application access use case, but I asked for
real-world examples of this and none were forthcoming, so it's very
hard to evaluate the use case or suggested approaches.

> Is the support of legacy code an acceptable use case?
> https://github.com/kripken/emscripten/wiki
>
> emscripten runs LLVM byte code, and -necessarily- uses Canvas for painting
> output.

If you're talking about a web application providing a sort of
emulator, I think that situation is essentially the same as with
remote system access: most practically approached by running AT inside
the emulation.

--
Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis

Received on Tuesday, 12 July 2011 21:08:50 UTC